Pile of junk?

Source ICE

As we commented here, increase in spreads could indicate decrease in ratings down the line.  The chart indicates that the BBB spread has jumped up following the market collapse this month. Insurers hold significant amounts of this ratings class – see e.g. the Just Group financial report out today, p.17, so they are at some risk of their holdings being downgraded to junk status.

InsuranceERM comments today “Widening credit spreads and bond downgrades will weaken insurers’ capital, particularly for life insurers with guaranteed products or large portfolios of annuities. Bond downgrades will either force insurers to hold more capital, or sell the assets.” Correct, and as we noted in our earlier post, the assets sold will have to be replaced by better-rated assets, generating an instant and irrecoverable loss.

Zerohedge discusses the problem here, noting that $3 trillion in bonds are on the cusp of downgrade, that the bulk of BBB rated issuance was used to fund the trillions in buybacks that levitated the stock market over the past few years, and stating (without any sense of alarmism, meh) that

as of this moment, over $140 billion of debt issued by independent oil and gas producers, oilfield services providers and integrated energy companies has triple-B credit ratings from Moody’s or S&P and is now at risk of falling to junk status.

But as they also note, rating agencies have in the past been “painfully behind the curve and slow to adjust to changing fundamentals” so it will take some time for all this to work out.

Fortunately life insurers have plenty of time.

Crisis wot crisis

From our friends at the Bank today:

In response to the material fall in government bond yields in recent weeks, the PRC invites requests from insurance companies to use the flexibility in Solvency II regulations to recalculate the transitional measures that smooth the impact of market movements.  This will support market functioning.

Transitional measures are a fake regulatory asset that can be used create capital to replace what is lost when liabilities rise through, e.g. fall in long term discount rate.

We could use this method to address the current epidemic. Instead of causing an epidemic by reporting the number of diagnosed cases, simply change it to a lower number.

Problem solved.

 

Insurers can’t model pandemics

An article here in InsuranceERM quotes Nita Madhav, chief executive of epidemic risk analytics company Metabiota, as saying that insurers are not prepared to model the effect of crises such as the current coronavirus one.

From the insurance sector perspective, they are not well prepared to handle epidemics,” says Madhav. “A lot of times companies are applying very crude shock scenarios to the portfolio. For example, they are not taking into account the difference in countries preparedness. It is an area where insurers are not embracing the full power cat [catastrophe] modelling can bring.

I would not be surprised. The shape of the curves I have been posting in our cvirus coverage is not a biological property of the virus itself. With no concerted action, the curve will keep on rising and will only flatten out when pretty everyone is either infected and recovered, or die. The flattening effect is caused by the concerted action, and different administrations will have different reaction times to the crisis.

Can insurers model anything, we wonder?

Fujian

Fujian looks like the first province to have completely eradicated the corona virus, if the figures are to be believed.  See chart above. 296 cases diagnosed, 295 recoveries and 1 death. Thus the two methods of computing the case fatality converge.

CFR  =  D(R+D)  =  D/C  = 1/(295+1)  =  0.34%.

or 1 in 296. With a population of 38.6m, the ratio of fatalities to population is thus 1 in 38.6m, proving again as I argued yesterday, the best chance of surviving the virus is not getting it.

China syndrome

The chart above shows cases (C), deaths  (D) and recoveries (R) in the Chinese province of Henan, 22 January – 7 March 2020 (source John Hopkins).

As you can see, the number of cases rises rapidly until early February, then the rise slows, and from mid February tails off completely. With a delay of about two weeks the number  of recoveries rises, then falls, following the same pattern. Thus there are now 1,272 diagnosed cases in Henan, with 1,243 recoveries, and only 7 unresolved cases, and 7 deaths.

With a population of 95m in Henan, that means that the fatality ratio of cases resolved is 1 in 58, but as a ratio of the general population it is only 1 in 4,333,000.

Does that mean there is no cause for worry?

Continue reading “China syndrome”

New Treasury Committee

Chair: Mel Stride

Members: Rushanara AliSteve BakerHarriett BaldwinAnthony Browne, Felicity BuchanAngela EagleLiz KendallJulie MarsonAlison McGovernAlison Thewliss

You can see them all on Parliament TV at the first hearing of Wednesday 4 March 2020.

Subject: Appointment of Andrew Bailey as Governor of the Bank of England

Witnesses: Andrew Bailey, Chief Executive, Financial Conduct Authority

Steve Baker gives a particularly firm questioning to the governor-elect.

Central planning works?

Never thought Eumaeus would say that, but if the data is right (sourced from John Hopkins) then the chart above shows how, for three Chinese provinces (Guangdong, Henan, Hunan) the rise in new cases has been almost completely stopped.

Bruce Aylward (Assistant Director-General of the World Health Organization, and the leader of the WHO team that visited Wuhan in China) explains here how they did it.

His main target, and the message bears repeating endlessly, is the fallacy that only an authoritarian regime can accomplish what was done in China.

We know it’s a bad dangerous disease. How do we bring the mortality down? You concentrate your resources, you shorten the time frame to make sure you can identify very quickly, you look at the high risk ones and get them into the specialised centres in case they crash, these are the things that we should focus on.

[EDIT] For balance, here is Gordon Change explaining how China has “bought the WHO”, and questioning the statistics (see chart above) apparently showing that infections are “on the downslope”. “Whenever you have statistics supporting a leader’s policies, you’ve got to be very concerned”.

As we have reiterated, the conclusion depends on the accuracy of the data, and accuracy of data is hard to determine when all we have is the data. As Wittgenstein said, you can’t check what is said in the newspaper by buying a second copy.